September 18, 2007
Once
Musical does not live up to buzz
As I write this, the small, Irish musical, Once (John Carney, 2006) has passed the $7 million mark, winning the hearts of film critics and audiences, alike. Oscar glory may well be waiting in the wings; its savvy Indiewood distributor Fox Searchlight has a superb track record with the Academy (a Harvey Weinsteinian slate of films that appealingly teeter between "offbeat" and mainstream - Sideways, Little Miss Sunshine). Once could just be 2007's darkhorse contender to beat. Such universal acclaim, however, can be a mixed blessing. I finally screened Once in mid August, and the great love story I imagined Once to be, was not fully realized onscreen.
Once looks and feels like a happy accident; more of a testament to fortunate happenstance than a first rate collaboration. Most of Once's gentle charms can be traced to its low budget; in a romantic universe without Julia Roberts or ultra-sleek lighting or dolly shots, it can be downright refreshing. Although some technical elements leaves much to be desired (the awkward zooms-ins, whether intentional or not, remained a distraction throughout the film), the wonderful soundtrack (think Damian Rice-esque in its combination of acoustic folk and pop) and sound mixing lend credence to the budding love between two aspiring musicians (the talented Glen Hansard and Markéta Irglová).
And so the question beckons: Is Once, as more than a few critics and friends have exclaimed, a classic-in-the-making? I'd beg to differ. Although I was grateful for Once's old school, bittersweetly romantic tropes and earthy production values, sorefully lacking from the big screen is a quality I have sought and relished in classics, old (David Lean's Brief Encounter) and new (Wong Kar-Wai's In the Mood for Love): a vivid sense of time and place to remember fondly and remorsefully. In Brief Encounter and In the Mood for Love, respectively, forbidden glances are exchanged on a steamy London railway platform and across an overcrowded corridor in Hong Kong.
Once's Dublin streets, on the other hand, barely registered as an afterthought. Where the musicians first met and where they parted I did not remember, nor did I care, really. I can only casually recall a handful of episodic flirtations - a conversation starter about a broken vacuum in a street corner, a jaunt in a music store, and a weekend session in a recording studio - that failed to make any lasting, visceral impression in my mind nor my heart.
Comments
Su said...
This is one of the weirdest reviews I've read in a while and I really don't know what to make of it.
Once is first and foremost a musical, so why these comparisons with pure Romance films?
"Once's Dublin streets... barely registered as an afterthought." Did you not recognize Grafton Street where the Guy was busking? Or do you not know Dublin at all? A famous Dublin landmark compared to a 'Hong Kong' corridor...
Actually, Hansard insisted that the film be a low-budget production with an intimate feel; while partly constrained by deserted funders it was certainly not an "accident." On the other hand, Wong Kar-Wai has no such excuse for his low-budget quickie.
Both your "classics" are culturally ancient: Brief Encounter set in 1938; In the Mood for Love, 1962. "Forbidden glances are exchanged" in public spaces? Bah! Here the Guy simply asks the Girl if she'll like to stay the night after the first flash of interest (a 'faux pas' common in our day and age)...
Should I toss in some comments on bourgeois ethics versus working class values? Let's just leave it at that.
Posted by: Su | October 31, 2007 9:09 AM
Tram said...
Su - Why should I HAVE to compare it to a musical? Doesn't it also qualify as a romantic film? Charlie Kaufman once said that he hates it whenever his films are reduced into one genre. I agree.
The word "accident" is not supposed to be taken literally. It was referring to the film's guerilla style of shooting (low production values, unknown stars). And btw, the low budget was mostly due to a lot of financial constraints. I'm sorry, but such an acknowledgment came from the director's mouth (I believe from the publication Entertainment Weekly). Not mines.
I also didn't like the film's handheld camera. I felt it was clumsy at best. Once again, this is an opinion. If you disagree with this assertion, fine. Films are subjective by nature. They provoke different emotions in different spectators.
Also, I compared Brief Encounter and In the Mood for Love because they were old school romances. "Old school romance" does not specifically infer to a particular time or era. Once is an example of a more traditional way of telling a romantic story. Yes, the Guy asks the Girl if she wants to come up. But you know what. She declines. They don't consummate their relationship. The lack of consummation is what's traditional about it. Most contempo movies feature explicit sex left and right; Once does not.
I'm sorry if I share a different opinion than yours. But please, please do not put words in my mouth.
Posted by: Tram | November 2, 2007 1:40 AM
Tram said...
"Did you not recognize Grafton Street where the Guy was busking? Or do you not know Dublin at all? A famous Dublin landmark compared to a 'Hong Kong' corridor..."
Once again, taking things too literally, sweetums.
Hell, I've never been to Vienna before, or Montauk, for that matter. I cannot recognize any stretch of land depicted in Before Sunrise and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. But I FELT Vienna. I FELT Montauk. After watching both films. Linklater and Gondry knew how to make the most of the landscape on film; Carney didn't IMHO.
btw, I've never been to Hong Kong before. But WKW can shoot the hell outta a simple, no-name corridor, while John Carney struggles to make a decent establishing shot in a landmark.
Posted by: Tram | November 2, 2007 1:53 AM
Tram said...
I was watching the Jennifer Garner rom-com vehicle, 13 Going on 30, the other day and thought it was remarkably old school. Shoot me?
Posted by: Tram | November 2, 2007 1:58 AM
Ben said...
pow! :P
Posted by: Ben | November 5, 2007 8:18 PM
Su said...
I must have touched a nerve; each reply is more belligerent than the last. While that was never my intention, I will stand by my comments.
I don't have a problem with you stating your opinions nor did I put words in your mouth. You, on the other hand, appear to be doing that to me. I didn't criticize, not even mention, your opinion on the film's technical elements. Why bring it up?
However, I do have a problem with someone using double standards or when an opinion is based on incorrect premises. I acknowledged in my previous comment that financial constraints played a part in the low budget. But, as I pointed out, Hansard also wanted that aesthetic (and that's from his mouth). Moreover, the director's choice of songs and a 'non-Julia Roberts' actress were primarily the reason Cillian Murphy pulled out (and with him went most of the funding). To call that an "accident" (literally or figuratively) rather than a first rate collaboration is unfair. Especially when you consider that In the Mood for Love was a "low-budget quickie" (from the liner notes of The Criterion Collection DVD edition), a commercial product knocked out so Wong Kar-Wai's company could get "through its cash flow problems", and yet that didn't stop you from ascribing that director's choices to his brilliance or recognizing it's a classic.
I agree that Once is partly romance, but that's not the focus. In your review, it wasn't evaluated as a musical. I would be good if you took your own advice on that. You're looking for a great love story but Once never sets out to be that! The Guy and Girl never do fall in love, which is partly why she doesn't go up (compare to those other movies where it is the moral code that prevents them from consummating their relationship even though they are in love). The movie is about the connection of two people through their music - as friends. The question is: will it be 'friends with benefits'? A option that's never available in those old school romances. Maybe Once falls so low in your estimation but it's not really an old school romance?
Posted by: Su | November 11, 2007 3:23 PM
Tram said...
Su,
"You're looking for a great love story but Once never sets out to be that!"
Once may not be considered a love story in your eyes, but it is in mines. You are granted the right to interpret Once as solely a musical. I have a right to interpret it otherwise.
"Moreover, the director's choice of songs and a 'non-Julia Roberts' actress were primarily the reason Cillian Murphy pulled out (and with him went most of the funding)."
Yeah, Once was a v. low budget film. I insinuated in the review that the low budget was part of its rougish charm. I believe that movie stars - and Cillian Murphy certainly counts as one - bring baggage to a film. And Once would've certainly been a different film had Murphy been casted in the finished product. Now I know that Glen Hasard belongs to the band, The Frames. But the last time I checked, his band is quite below-the-radar.
"Especially when you consider that In the Mood for Love was a "low-budget quickie" (from the liner notes of The Criterion Collection DVD edition), a commercial product knocked out so Wong Kar-Wai's company could get "through its cash flow problems", and yet that didn't stop you from ascribing that director's choices to his brilliance or recognizing it's a classic."
Most of WKW's film are short on cash. Let's just say, he's more of a festival darling than a moneymaker.
Anyhow, my central problem with Once has more to do with the direction than anything else. I think John Carney's direction is pure vanilla - he doesn't add anything to the palette. If you wanna see guerilla, fly-on-the-wall filmmaking done right, then I recommend you seeing a recent film festival called Owl and the Sparrow. Its director - Stephane Gauger - knows how to handle a camera. And if you wanna see bittersweet tales of unconsummated love, then WKW is your man. Or Lean. Or Linklater. (Or anyone with a strong personality, for that matter.)
But you probably like John Carney's direction, I take it? And that's all fine and dandy.
"The movie is about the connection of two people through their music - as friends. The question is: will it be 'friends with benefits'? A option that's never available in those old school romances. Maybe Once falls so low in your estimation but it's not really an old school romance?"
Once again, you interpret Once as a story between two platonic friends. I interpreted it otherwise (a romance without consummation -hence the old school angle, I adhered upon?). It's all in the eye of the beholder, I guess.
Anyhow, feel free to comment some more. I was put off by your initial sarcasm. If I rubbed you the wrong way, then I apologize. But it was an eye-for-an-eye kinda thing.
Posted by: Tram | November 12, 2007 5:33 AM
Tram said...
"The Guy and Girl never do fall in love, which is partly why she doesn't go up (compare to those other movies where it is the moral code that prevents them from consummating their relationship even though they are in love)."
In the Once that I saw, The Guy and the Girl DID fall in love - and there was a moral code. The moral code may not have been as strict as, say, in In the Mood for Love, where traditional, Confuscian values still prevail, but it's there. The Guy and the Girl belong to other people (The Guy still has to sort out his problems with the girl in London, and the Girl with the father of her child). If there's one moral code still prevalent in modern, Western society, it's monogamy. From the get-go, the Guy and the Girl, I thought it was clearly established, that the two were perfect for one another. There was only one catch: Both were involved with other people.
The "friends with benefits" angle never dawned upon me, not in the slightest. But there ya go: if a picture is worth a thousand words...
Posted by: Tram | November 12, 2007 5:52 AM
Su said...
I'm not interpreting Once solely as a musical! Can we just get that straight first?
Posted by: Su | November 12, 2007 2:28 PM
Tram said...
You're interpreting it as a non-romance. A film, more or less, about the power of music and how it can bring people together. I perceived Once as an unrequited romance. I thought there was more to the relationship (between the Guy and the Girl) than meets the eye.
Either way, this discussion is running outta steam. Nothing new is brought to the table.
To each his own. That's my philosophy when it comes to film. Pure subjectivity. Capice?
Thanks for coming.
Posted by: Tram | November 13, 2007 3:25 AM
Su said...
Just because I don't think they are in love doesn't stop me from interpreting the movie as a romance. Surely you've seen a rebound relationship or some other flirting and dating between people who doubt it's going anywhere. There is still some romance.
Oh please don't give me that "pure subjectivity" crap. We all interact, create a language, points of reference, common codes, genres... We can speak of quality.
If it was to each his own then why would I bother coming back here? (I saw Killer of Sheep based partly on your review and loved it)
Ironically my problem is not with your opinion - well, just some of it ;) - but that you haven't given more of it. Would it hurt to write more about the musical aspects of the film? The music is not merely a soundtrack (as for all other musicals it is often also important dialogue) and in this film the music is almost all diagetic. It's so well integrated into the action that rarely is the outburst into song received liked an interlude. Without comment (even if a negative one) the review feels weird and incomplete. It's like watching Land and Freedom and then only reviewing the relationship between Carr and Blanca (or is this a rom-com fansite?) You an do better than that...
Fine, no more from me. This is played out.
Posted by: Su | November 16, 2007 3:28 PM
Tram said...
You make a good point about the diagetic music. That was among the film's stronger points. In glossier, higher- budgeted films I have seen, the soundtrack - amplified by non-diagetic sound remixes - didn't sound as pure and authentic as it did in Once.
Should I attribute it to financial constraints? Yeah. Nevertheless, I should ALSO give props whereby due: the music supervisors, not to mention the musician themselves, did a great job. The vocals, the sound, the volume - everything came together, beautifully.
As I insinuated in the review, verite aspects of the film added a rougish, rough 'n' tumble charm that otherwise would have been MIA.
With that being said, I could not help but think that these virtues were more a result of cirumstance rather than craft.
Was I being a little harsh when I dismissed Once as a "happy accident"? Maybe. It was v. much an intentional hyperbole on my part. And I'm sorry, if you took it literally; it was meant to be construed as tongue-in-cheek, more than anything else. Because everyone - AND anyone - who has a creative fiber in their body knows that the artistic process is complicated: it is both planned and spontaneous (or as I'd like to analogize it: as much from the gut as it is from the brain).
Surely, to dismiss everything good about Once as "lucky" is unfair, at best. However, I ultimately felt that Once's weaknesses (Carney's jarring cuts and zoom-ins, for instance; his not making sufficient use of the Dublin streets) outweighed its strengths. There were too many technical aspects that came off - to me, at least - as amateur.
In the spirit of my "to each his own" adage, I don't think there is much else to discuss here. It is important for me to point out that I quibbled with Carney's aesthetics, mainly because I'm unsatisfied with them - they leave me out in the cold. Or should I put it this another way: I am seeking an "objective" explanation for my dissatisfaction. You, on the other hand, have found something poignant in Carney's aesthetics. Thus, any quibbling, whatsoever, doesn't hold much water.
To me, art is just too damn relative.
Posted by: Tram | November 17, 2007 5:12 AM